Friends and Relations
Some thoughts in re: Alan Jacobs’ two posts on inter-religious dialogue:
1. Tonight is the first night of Hanukkah, the famous Jewish celebration of religious intolerance, a commemoration of a great victory by the reactionary Hasmoneans against their Hellenizing opponents (and their Seleucid allies. That Hanukkah is understood in America is celebrated as a festival of religious freedom says something about how the meaning of a tradition is inevitably in the hands and minds of living tradents, but it says something more profound about the relationship between religious liberty and _in_tolerance. Religion (as opposed to conscience) is a corporate rather than an individual matter – Milton may have belonged to a sect of one, but most of us who are in any meaningful sense religious are members of corporate bodies extending through time and space. And corporate bodies to exist at all must define their boundaries: this is who we are, this is what we believe, this is how we behave. And this requires an implicitly if not explicitly excluded “not that.” This being the case, if freedom of religion means, most fundamentally, the freedom to be a heretic, it equally means the freedom to declare that the other guy is a heretic. In a very real sense, a social environment that is hostile to religious intolerance must necessarily be hostile to religious freedom. So, ironically, the modern transformation of Hanukkah from a festival of intolerance to a festival of religious freedom is no transformation at all!
2. Naturally enough, as a celebration of reactionary, intolerant fundamentalism, Hanukkah also celebrates the rejection of religious syncretism. And, naturally enough, Hanukkah is, in modern America, the preeminent syncretic holiday. And the syncretism runs in both directions. From the Jewish side, “competing” with Christmas has artificially elevated the status of Hanukkah from arguably the least important of the minor festivals to one of the most preeminent, and has also transformed the holiday (the tradition of giving Hanukkah presents is an adaptation of a Christmas-season custom, to say nothing of such outrages as the Hanukkah bush, Hanukkah Harry descending the chimney, or green-and-red-striped bagels). And in the general culture, where the presence or absence of a creche sparks fraught debate, the presence of a menorah kashers anybody’s “holiday” celebration, and the addition of Hanukkah songs kashers the “holiday season” repertoire of the school choir. And yet, once again, there’s a buried basis for such a sycretism in the history of Hanukkah, which probably began as a belated observance of the holiday of Sukkot/Tabernacles, a major festival that probably could not have been observed in its season because of the Temple’s defilement (hence the urgency to cleanse the Temple as quickly as possible). And Sukkot/Tabernacles is the Jewish festival that most explicitly looks forward to a period of religious unity, when all shall worship the Lord at His holy mountain.
3. The idea of believing in a God who is nice kind of boggles my mind. “Behold now Behemoth that I made with thee” – that’s the God I’m familiar with. And yet, while we’re told to imitate God in various ways (clothe the sick as He does, heal the hungry as He does, feed the naked as He does), are we sure that it’s wrong for us to be nice just because He isn’t, particularly? “Tolerance” is a particularly ugly word, but liberality, generosity of spirit: these are generally counted as signs of strength, not weakness, in an individual or a tradition. I’m not trying to defend a foolish liberality, but then, I hear a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, so maybe the main thing is not to be foolish?
4. I’m going to give one specific cheer for religious dialogue: authentic knowledge is very hard to come by without dialogue, and knowledge is good. It’s good for it’s own sake; it’s good because, inasmuch as religion depends on exclusion for corporate identity, it’s a good idea to know what one is excluding, and that one is excluding it for right reasons; and because the resonances between the religious beliefs, practices and history of other faiths can be productive in one’s own tradition. If this were not the case, one must ask why the medieval theologians in Christian, Jewish and Muslim traditions bothered to keep up with one another’s arguments?
5. The additional cheer, for Jewish-Christian dialogue rests on a simple fact. For Jews and Hindus, or Christians and Buddhists, one alternative to dialogue is respectful distance. But Jews and Christians do not have that option, because our histories are bound up with each other. Christianity, after all, is an interpretation of Judaism (and, from a Jewish perspective, a heretical and arguably blasphemous one). We do not have the option of being strangers. I fear that, if we do not learn how to be friends, we shall perforce be enemies. And yet, it is not obvious that there are any enduringly plausible terms of friendship, at least not on any profound level.
Now I have to get back to cooking.
I think the “is God really nice?” line is a bit unfair. To take the tolerationists seriously, I think they take themselves to be arguing from the premise that God is good. You may think this premise implies nothing about toleration, but they’re not necessarily nice-ifying the divine.
— matt · Dec 21, 09:40 PM · #
The idea of believing in a God who is nice kind of boggles my mind. “Behold now Behemoth that I made with thee” – that’s the God I’m familiar with. And yet, while we’re told to imitate God in various ways (clothe the sick as He does, heal the hungry as He does, feed the naked as He does), are we sure that it’s wrong for us to be nice just because He isn’t, particularly? “Tolerance” is a particularly ugly word, but liberality, generosity of spirit: these are generally counted as signs of strength, not weakness, in an individual or a tradition.
This has got little or nothing to do with Judaism, but one of my biggest problems with contemporary Christianity is that so many Christians are more interested in Jesus’s life than in what he said— biography, rather than the teachings. So when they say “Aha, if you look at Revelations”— a book that just missed out on being labeled apocryphal and a minor nothing of a historical oddity, until 20th Christians decided it was the most important because it told them what they wanted to hear— “look, in Revelations Jesus is a destroyer,” part of the reason it’s so wrongheaded is because Jesus said, over and over again, in the Gospels— the story so important it’s told four times— that for us, humans, we’re bound by Christ to love each other and treat each other with charity. Forget about how Jesus acts. He gave pretty explicit instructions, and if anyone should have the authority to say “Do as I say and not as I am”, I’d say it’s god.
Same sort of thinking with the question of whether god is nice or not. It’s not really important, right? What matters is what god commands of us, not our interpretation of his character. Nowhere is it said, in Torah or Bible, “your job is to be like god.”
— Freddie · Dec 21, 09:56 PM · #
matt:
To my ear, saying “God is nice” sounds a lot like saying, “God has good manners.”
— Noah Millman · Dec 21, 09:57 PM · #
““Tolerance” is a particularly ugly word”
“Tolerance”, of course, is a perfectly good word. Unfortunately, just like when people now use the word “humility” to actually mean “false humility” or cowardice, the word “tolerance” now is often associated with spinelessness and moral relativism.
— Kolya · Dec 21, 11:47 PM · #
A really wonderful post, Noah, with many excellent points about how historical memory is used.
What you say about Jewish-Christian relations is also true, and a great grief to me. The very closeness of the two faiths, the appeal to the same Scriptures, and the attitude of Jesus towards much of the Judaism of his time would make genuine dialogue difficult in any circumstances, but the long and shameful history of Christian anti-Semitism makes trust almost impossible to achieve.
And Freddie: “Forget about how Jesus acts”? Forget about how Jesus acts??? But even if you do, he still says a lot of things that none of us will find comfortable. A great deal of Biblical scholarship has been devoted to getting rid of Jesus’s most discomfiting statements, but the Jesus who isn’t edited until he conforms to all our prejudices is a lot more interesting than the homogenized version.
— Alan Jacobs · Dec 22, 02:07 AM · #
I really don’t see what any of the fuss is about. I’m not being disingenuous, I really don’t. Dialogue between jews and christians? About what? Who has the more acurate description of the universe? Who cares? As far as I can see the whole point of religious tolerance is that you think the other guy is wrong but you don’t kill him for it.
And as far as humility goes in this case, I think one way to look at it is, you don’t overvalue being right. You have the right conception of god and this other guy is all wrong. But so what? People are right and wrong a million times a day, but there is no actual value in it. Being right in and of itself does not make you more valuable. Points are not awarded by the universe.
— cw · Dec 22, 03:24 AM · #
If this were not the case, one must ask why the medieval theologians in Christian, Jewish and Muslim traditions bothered to keep up with one another’s arguments?
most of the religious “dialogues” which i know of involve one religion (christianity or islam) monpolizing temporal power and forcing the others into debates for the pleasure of the potentate or the powers that be. e.g., the debate which jenkins refers to is the sort of thing which occurred so as to illustrate the superiority of islam over other faiths. jewish engagement with gentiles in andalusia has a similar motive insofar as they wanted to show the correctness of their own views in the face of the reality of muslim and christian domination, right?
— razib · Dec 22, 04:31 AM · #
razib: I’m thinking more in terms of Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas reading Muslim Aristotelians. Why do that unless there’s some utility in learning how other faiths have “solved” a particular theological problem?
cw: believing that your religious choices have cosmic consequences – that the universe does award points – is pretty darned common across religions.
— Noah Millman · Dec 22, 12:53 PM · #
Freddie said: “‘Same sort of thinking with the question of whether god is nice or not. It’s not really important, right? What matters is what god commands of us, not our interpretation of his character. Nowhere is it said, in Torah or Bible, “your job is to be like god.’”
Really? I think our interpretation of God’s character has everything to do with following his commands – in terms of both our understanding and motivation. God’s commands reveal a certain kind of character in God: God is as God does. The Bible explicitly draws the parallels between God’s character and our action. 1 Peter 1:15-16 cites the great refrain from Leviticus 11:44-45 and elsewhere that we are to be holy as God is holy, and don’t forget Jesus’ own words in Mt. 5:48 to “be perfect, therefore, as heavenly father is perfect.”
I must take a moment to share my gratitude to all you TAS bloggers and responders. I have learned much from your conversation.
grace and peace – Andy
— Andy Cornett · Dec 22, 04:39 PM · #
Noah: “Why do that unless there’s some utility in learning how other faiths have “solved” a particular theological problem?”
What to do with reason was indeed a common problem. But the action wasn’t dialogue; it was more like expropriation.
Freddie: I’ve lived in the American South (Jesusland) my entire life. I’ve attended uncounted Pentacostal, Church of Christ, Baptist, Presbyterian, Adventist, Methodist, and even Unitarian Universalist services. Two uncles are pastors, my father and a score of kin sing Gospel Music professionally. Thus, I am very confident when I say that what you wrote above — about what 20th Christians want and profess — is grossly and laughingly inaccurate, complete and utter nonsense. It’s the same kind of uninformed pap, bred from distance, that others throw at Islam.
It may be all Jesus Camp in there, but that’s not the way it is down here.
— JA · Dec 22, 04:46 PM · #
Oh, and please note that I’m an Asymptotic Atheist. Also note that the religious right is my political competitor and philosophical opponent. My only interest in defending Christianity is accuracy and fairness.
— JA · Dec 22, 04:55 PM · #
Actually, judging from your comment, I’d say that your only interest in defending Christianity is winning the game of blog comments, and using it as an opportunity to score points against me, in this instance. I don’t think, actually, that you’re interested in fairness and accuracy; indeed, your comment demonstrates that you saw what you thought was an opening for self-righteous invective, and couldn’t pass up the opportunity. What possible good does your comment do for the conversation? For understanding? None. You’re harboring grudges, I imagine, because I’ve said things detrimental to your dime-store philosophizing about consciousness in the past, and anyway, everyone loves to play “defender of truth and principle.” I’m just not interested in playing blog comment Battleship, sorry.
And, look— it is a particularly annoying tic of blog comment arguments when people say “You’re arguments from anecdote are false; I know, because of my anecdotal evidence!” Well, sorry, man, I’ve got my experiences, you’ve got yours, and saying that you somehow have access to the real truth because your experience differs from mine is just assertion. It’s empty space, dead air, nada y pues nada.
— Freddie · Dec 22, 05:26 PM · #
You’re right, Freddie. My amended complaint adopts, as though stated herein, all of 20th Century Christian literature, all of Vanderbilt Divinity School’s archives, the published sermons of American pastors, and the Bible itself.
The allegation is fraud. Guess I could have been a little clearer about that.
— JA · Dec 22, 05:49 PM · #
The problem that Jews and and Christians have is, their two religions are almost inherently an affront to each other, in spite of all they have in common.
No matter how warm, tolerant and friendly a Christian may be, his very presence practically shouts out to Jews, “The Messiah came to bring salvation, but your people rejected him.” And no matter how friendly a Jew may be, his very existence tells Christians, “Your ‘Lord and Savior’ was nothing of the kind.”
No Christian I know is mean enough to tell a Jew “You poor saps have missed the boat,” and no Jew I know is mean enough to tell Christians, “You dumb schmucks are worshipping a misguided, dead Jewish carpenter.” But let’s face it, that’s pretty much what each side is thinking! And there is absolutely no nice way to say either of those things!
Even the most charitable Christian is bound to sound patronizing to Jews, and vice versa. It can’t be helped. At best, we can say (or imply) to each other that, “Oh well, your religion is all wrong about the Most Important Thing There Is, but I suppose it does YOU some good, and I’m sure God will sort it out justly in the end.”
Again, I can’t think of ANY nice way to say that, even though it’s an accurate summary of what each side is bound to think of the other.
For that reason, “dialogue” is bound to end in frustration, if the goal is coming to any kind of agreement.
— astorian · Dec 22, 06:03 PM · #
Hey, Noah! I have a response to point 1 (click on my name link if you’re interested).
The general point is that there’s no tension between religious freedom and tolerance. If you understand the freedom to ‘call someone a heretic’ as mere disagreement, then it’s compatible with religious freedom and tolerance. But if you understand the freedom to ‘call someone a heretic’ as the ability to use some kind of coercive power against them, then it’s incompatible with religious freedom and tolerance.
— Neil the Ethical Werewolf · Dec 22, 08:17 PM · #
“cw: believing that your religious choices have cosmic consequences – that the universe does award points – is pretty darned common across religions.”
You are right of course, but I meant that you don’t get points in the argument. Say you and I are discussing our religious beliefs and lack thereof. You are actually completely right and I am completly wrong, but nothing accrues from that. You get no EXTRA points for winning the argument. At least in my experience. God does not curse my opponants with scabies when they lose. Not does he leave a hundred under my pillow.
To rephrase my point, as long as we all agree to be tolerant of others beliefs (that don’t physically and unjustly effct us in the negative) we can argue all we want but nothing happens. Tolerant in this case means: I will ot hurt you becasue of what you believe. This means that the argument is more or less for recreation. Or more exactly, without consequence.
— cw · Dec 22, 08:39 PM · #
Freddie, you’re one of my favorite commenters, so don’t take it amiss when I say:
1) Presumably, Noah’s conception of G-d isn’t much influenced by either Jesus’s actions or his words.
2) It’s The Book of Revela tion. Anyone citing “Revelation s“ to you can safely be ignored.
3) More seriously, Jesus commands us to be kind, generous and welcoming, and lives it himself, but AFAICT, he doesn’t command or inspire us to be tolerant or “nice” in the way Noah is using it. Tax collectors, prostitutes, lost lambs and prodigal sons are all welcome, but Jesus is pretty clear that he expect them to stop doing the stuff he doesn’t like.
— J Mann · Dec 22, 10:29 PM · #
Regarding point 1, beyond the philosophy, lots of ironies in the history as well; Hanukkah is the story of the heavy-handed and religiously intolerant intervention of a foreign king in a dispute between worldly, open-minded modernizers and narrowly bigoted reactionaries, on behalf of the modernizers, leading to the reactionaries winning their religious freedom, but the modernizers losing theirs. The reactionaries would later use their powers their powers to forcibly converting neighbouring peoples, including (most likely) the ancestor of an obscure Galilean carpenter, executed for his religious beliefs. The descendants of those reactionaries would later become a persecuted minority for 2 millenia at the hands of believers in the divinity of said carpenter. Hmmn.
— Danny · Dec 22, 11:52 PM · #
About those quote-unquote Hanukkah songs, I like to imagine that they were composed on some Bizarro-world Tin Pan Alley, in which actual turn-of-the-century black musicians sat around, getting their klezmer on.
— Matt Frost · Dec 23, 01:06 AM · #
Perhaps this is a good opportunity to recall the exchange between Pope Benedict XVI and Rabbi Jacob Neusner about Jesus. (See, e.g., http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6102)
The exchange was an example of a charitable but hard-minded ecumenism, rather than the vapid, free-to-be-you-and-me exchanges, rightly scorned by Jacobs, that disregard claims of truth in the spirit of “openness” and “tolerance.” I think the exchange is also an excellent example of the friendship that can be fostered between Christianity and Judaism, although perhaps I’m being naive. Benedict clearly was delighted and inspired by Neusner’s book, and Jews were, in turn, delighted, by Benedict’s regard.
Can anyone point to a better for model for dialogue between Judaism and Christianity?
— Shane MacGowan's Teeth · Dec 23, 03:04 AM · #
Regarding a “nice” God (which is how my evangelical cousins usually picture him)…as I become older (and hopefully wiser), I’m becoming more and more convinced that God, if he exists, is certainly not “nice,” but instead is actually a sadistic prick.
If I ever stumble across him, I’m looking forward to throwing my shoes at him.
— Jeff · Dec 24, 05:56 PM · #
EVERYWHERE you look, there is suffering. Some people bring it on themselves. They contract sexually transmitted diseases or experience the effects of drug or alcohol abuse or of smoking. Or they may encounter health problems because of poor eating habits. However, much suffering results from factors or events beyond the control of the average person: war, ethnic violence, crime, poverty, famine, disease. Something else that humans basically cannot control is suffering related to aging and death.
The Bible assures us that “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) Why, then, has a loving God allowed all this suffering to continue for so many centuries? When will he remedy the situation? To answer such questions, we need to examine God’s purpose with regard to humans. This will help us to understand why God has allowed suffering and what he will do about it.
The Gift of Free Will
When God created the first human, he produced more than just a body with a brain. Further, God did not create Adam and Eve to be mindless robots. He implanted in them the faculty of free will. And that was a fine gift, for “God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31) Yes, “perfect is his activity.” (Deuteronomy 32:4) All of us appreciate this gift of free will because we do not want all our thoughts and actions dictated to us without ever having a choice in anything.
However, was the fine gift of free will to be used without limits? In directions given to early Christians, God’s Word answers: “Be as free people, and yet holding your freedom, not as a blind for badness, but as slaves of God.” (1 Peter 2:16) For the common good, there must be boundaries. Hence, free will was to be regulated by the rule of law. Otherwise, anarchy would result.
Whose Law?
Whose law was to determine the proper limits of freedom? The answer to this question has to do with the fundamental reason why God has permitted suffering. Since God created humans, he knows best what laws they need to obey for their own good and for the good of others. The Bible puts it this way: “I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk.“—Isaiah 48:17.
Clearly, a vital point is this: Humans were not created to be independent of God. He made them in such a way that their success and happiness depend on obedience to his righteous laws. God’s prophet Jeremiah said: “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.“—Jeremiah 10:23.
God made mankind subject to his physical laws, such as the law of gravity. Similarly, he made humans to be subject to his moral laws, which are designed to result in a harmonious society. For good reason, then, God’s Word urges: “Trust in Jehovah with all your heart and do not lean upon your own understanding.“—Proverbs 3:5.
Thus, the human family could never be successful in regulating itself without God’s rulership. Trying to be independent from him, people would devise social, economic, political, and religious systems that would conflict with one another, and ‘man would dominate man to his injury.‘—Ecclesiastes 8:9.
What Went Wrong?
God gave our first parents, Adam and Eve, a perfect start. They had perfect bodies and minds and a paradise garden for a home. If they had submitted to God’s rule, they would have remained perfect and happy. In time, they would have been the parents of an entire perfect, happy human family living on a paradise earth. That was God’s purpose for the human race.—Genesis 1:27-29; 2:15.
However, our original ancestors misused their free will. They wrongly thought that they could be successful independent of God. Of their own free will, they stepped outside the boundaries of his laws. (Genesis, chapter 3) Because they rejected his rulership, he no longer was obligated to sustain them in perfection. ‘They acted ruinously on their own part, did not remain his children, and the defect was their own.‘—Deuteronomy 32:5.
From the time they disobeyed God, Adam and Eve began to degenerate in body and mind. With Jehovah is the source of life. (Psalm 36:9) So because of cutting themselves off from Jehovah, the first human couple became imperfect and eventually died. (Genesis 3:19) Consistent with laws of genetic inheritance, their offspring could receive only what their parents themselves possessed. And what was that? It was imperfection and death. The apostle Paul therefore wrote: “Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.“—Romans 5:12.
The Main Issue—Sovereignty
When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, they challenged his sovereignty, that is, his right to rule. Jehovah could have destroyed them and started over with another couple, but that would not have settled the issue of whose rulership is right and best for people. Granted time to develop their societies according to their own ideas, humans would demonstrate beyond any doubt whether rulership independent from God could ever be successful.
What do thousands of years of human history tell us? For all those centuries, people have tried many kinds of social, economic, political, and religious systems. However, wickedness and suffering have continued. In fact, ‘wicked men have advanced from bad to worse,’ especially in our time.—2 Timothy 3:13.
The 20th century saw a peak of scientific and industrial achievements. But it also saw the worst suffering in the entire history of the human race. And no matter what medical advances are made, the law of God still holds true: Humans separated from God—the source of life—get sick, grow old, and die. How clearly it has been proved that humans cannot ‘direct their own steps’!
God’s Sovereignty Asserted
Once and for all time, this tragic experiment in independence from God has demonstrated that rulership by humans apart from him can never succeed. Only God’s rulership can bring happiness, unity, health, and life. Moreover, Jehovah God’s infallible Word, the Holy Bible, shows that we are living in “the last days” of human rule independent from God. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) Jehovah’s toleration of this and of wickedness and suffering is nearing its end.
God will soon intervene in human affairs. The Scriptures tell us: “In the days of those kings [human rulerships now existing] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom [in heaven] that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people [never again will humans rule the earth]. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms [present rulerships], and it itself will stand to times indefinite.“—Daniel 2:44.
The vindication of Jehovah God’s sovereignty by means of the heavenly Kingdom is the Bible’s theme. Jesus made this his foremost teaching. He said: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.“—Matthew 24:14.
When God’s rulership replaces man’s rule, who will survive and who will not? At Proverbs 2:21, 22, we are assured: “The upright [who uphold God’s rule] are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. As regards the wicked [who do not uphold God’s rule], they will be cut off from the very earth.” The divinely inspired psalmist sang: “Just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more . . . But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.“—Psalm 37:10, 11, 29.
A Marvelous New World
Under the rulership of God’s Kingdom, survivors of the end of the present system of things will be ushered into an earth cleansed of wickedness and suffering. God-given instruction will be provided for mankind, and in time “the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea.” (Isaiah 11:9) This upbuilding, positive teaching will result in a truly peaceful, harmonious human society. Thus, there will be no more war, murder, violence, rape, theft, or any other crime.
Marvelous physical benefits will flow to obedient humans living in God’s new world. There will be a canceling out of all the bad consequences of rebellion against God’s rule. Imperfection, sickness, old age, and death will be things of the past. The Bible assures us: “No resident will say: ‘I am sick.’” Moreover, the Scriptures promise: “At that time the eyes of the blind ones will be opened, and the very ears of the deaf ones will be unstopped. At that time the lame one will climb up just as a stag does, and the tongue of the speechless one will cry out in gladness.” (Isaiah 33:24; 35:5, 6) What a thrill it will be to enjoy vibrant health every day—forever!
Under God’s loving direction, the inhabitants of that new world will use their energies and skills in building an earth-wide paradise. Gone forever will be poverty, hunger, and homelessness, for Isaiah’s prophecy states: “They will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat their fruitage. They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating.” (Isaiah 65:21, 22) Indeed, “they will actually sit, each one under his vine and under his fig tree, and there will be no one making them tremble.“—Micah 4:4.
The earth will respond to the loving care of God and obedient humans. We have these Scriptural assurances: “The wilderness and the waterless region will exult, and the desert plain will be joyful and blossom as the saffron. . . . In the wilderness waters will have burst out, and torrents in the desert plain.” (Isaiah 35:1, 6) “There will come to be plenty of grain on the earth; on the top of the mountains there will be an overflow.“—Psalm 72:16.
What about the billions of people who have died? Those in God’s memory will be brought back to life, for “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Yes, the dead will be restored to life. They will be taught the wonderful truths regarding God’s rulership and be given the opportunity to live forever in Paradise.—John 5:28, 29.
The Failure of Human Rule
Regarding human rulership, former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt stated: “We humans . . . have always only partially governed the world, and most of the time very badly. . . . We have never governed it in total peace.” Human Development Report 1999 noted: “All countries report erosion of their social fabric, with social unrest, more crime, more violence in the home. . . . Global threats are increasing, outgrowing national abilities to tackle them, and outpacing international responses.”
By these means, Jehovah God will completely reverse the awful condition of suffering, sickness, and death that has held mankind in its grip for thousands of years. No more sickness! No more disabilities! No more death! God “will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things [will] have passed away.“—Revelation 21:3, 4.
That is how God will end suffering. He will destroy this corrupt world and usher in an entirely new system of things in which “righteousness is to dwell.” (2 Peter 3:13) What good news this is! We desperately need that new world. And we will not have to wait long to see it. From the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, we know that the new world is at the door, and God’s permission of suffering is nearing its end.—Matthew 24:3-14.
— jonnybullet · Dec 26, 09:02 PM · #
Good post. Great clarifications.
Re point 3: I think we are called to be kind, not nice.
In Romans, Christians are told to “love without dissimulation.” “Nice” sometimes seems to carry a quality of dissimulation. * * * * *
Since having a child with special needs, I’ve become an advocate. “Nice” falls by the wayside, in favor of being effective. * * * *
There is a verse somewhere in the O.T. that refers to a surgeon/physician who hurts or cuts to heal. Sometimes it’s kind, in the long run, to inflict pain. * * * *
We’ve come on the scene since Lucifer fell—therefore, onto the scene of a universe at war. During a war, we don’t worry so much about being nice. We mount an offense, build a defenses, and bind up wounded.
— Julana · Dec 27, 08:58 PM · #
I’m not referring to an offense against other people, but a spiritual struggle.
— Julana · Dec 27, 09:06 PM · #
Leviticus
1 And Jehovah spoke further to Moses, saying: 2 “Speak to the entire assembly of the sons of Israel, and you must say to them, ‘YOU should prove yourselves holy, because I Jehovah YOUR God am holy.
3 “‘YOU should fear each one his mother and his father, and my sabbaths YOU should keep. I am Jehovah YOUR God. 4 Do not turn yourselves to valueless gods, and YOU must not make molten gods for yourselves. I am Jehovah YOUR God.
5 “‘Now in case YOU should sacrifice a communion sacrifice to Jehovah, YOU should sacrifice it to gain approval for yourselves. 6 On the day of YOUR sacrifice and directly the next day it should be eaten, but what is left over till the third day should be burned in the fire. 7 If, though, it should at all be eaten on the third day, it is a foul thing. It will not be accepted with approval. 8 And the one eating it will answer for his error, because he has profaned a holy thing of Jehovah; and that soul must be cut off from his people.
9 “‘And when YOU people reap the harvest of YOUR land, you must not reap the edge of your field completely, and the gleaning of your harvest you must not pick up. 10 Also, you must not gather the leftovers of your vineyard, and you must not pick up the scattered grapes of your vineyard. For the afflicted one and the alien resident you should leave them. I am Jehovah YOUR God.
11 “‘YOU people must not steal, and YOU must not deceive, and YOU must not deal falsely anyone with his associate. 12 And YOU must not swear in my name to a lie, so that you do profane the name of your God. I am Jehovah. 13 You must not defraud your fellow, and you must not rob. The wages of a hired laborer should not stay all night with you until morning.
14 “‘You must not call down evil upon a deaf man, and before a blind man you must not put an obstacle; and you must be in fear of your God. I am Jehovah.
15 “‘YOU people must not do injustice in the judgment. You must not treat the lowly with partiality, and you must not prefer the person of a great one. With justice you should judge your associate.
16 “‘You must not go around among your people for the sake of slandering. You must not stand up against your fellow’s blood. I am Jehovah.
17 “‘You must not hate your brother in your heart. You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may not bear sin along with him.
18 “‘You must not take vengeance nor have a grudge against the sons of your people; and you must love your fellow as yourself. I am Jehovah.
19 “‘YOU people should keep my statutes: You must not interbreed your domestic animals of two sorts. You must not sow your field with seeds of two sorts, and you must not put upon yourself a garment of two sorts of thread, mixed together.
20 “‘Now in case a man lies down with a woman and has an emission of semen, when she is a maidservant designated for another man, and she has not in any way been redeemed nor has freedom been given her, punishment should take place. They should not be put to death, because she was not set free. 21 And he must bring his guilt offering to Jehovah to the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram of guilt offering. 22 And the priest must make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before Jehovah for his sin that he committed; and his sin that he committed must be forgiven him.
23 “‘And in case YOU people come into the land, and YOU must plant any tree for food, YOU must also consider its fruitage impure as its “foreskin.” For three years it will continue uncircumcised for YOU. It should not be eaten. 24 But in the fourth year all its fruit will become a holy thing of festal exultation to Jehovah. 25 And in the fifth year YOU may eat its fruit in order to add its produce to yourselves. I am Jehovah YOUR God.
26 “‘YOU must eat nothing along with blood.
“‘YOU must not look for omens, and YOU must not practice magic.
27 “‘YOU must not cut YOUR sidelocks short around, and you must not destroy the extremity of your beard.
28 “‘And YOU must not make cuts in YOUR flesh for a deceased soul, and YOU must not put tattoo marking upon yourselves. I am Jehovah.
29 “‘Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, in order that the land may not commit prostitution and the land actually be filled with loose morals.
30 “‘My sabbaths YOU should keep, and YOU should stand in awe of my sanctuary. I am Jehovah.
31 “‘Do not turn yourselves to the spirit mediums, and do not consult professional foretellers of events, so as to become unclean by them. I am Jehovah YOUR God.
32 “‘Before gray hair you should rise up, and you must show consideration for the person of an old man, and you must be in fear of your God. I am Jehovah.
33 “‘And in case an alien resident resides with you as an alien in YOUR land, YOU must not mistreat him. 34 The alien resident who resides as an alien with YOU should become to YOU like a native of YOURS; and you must love him as yourself, for YOU became alien residents in the land of Egypt. I am Jehovah YOUR God.
35 “‘YOU must not commit injustice in judging, in measuring, in weighing or in measuring liquids. 36 YOU should prove to have accurate scales, accurate weights, an accurate e´phah and an accurate hin. Jehovah YOUR God I am, who have brought YOU out of the land of Egypt. 37 So YOU must keep all my statutes and all my judicial decisions, and YOU must do them. I am Jehovah
— jonnybullet · Dec 30, 03:18 PM · #